On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>
> > + num_voltages = regulator_count_voltages(regulator);
> > + if (num_voltages < 0)
> > + return num_voltages;
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_voltages; i++) {
> > + now = _regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i, 0);
> > + if (now < 0)
> > + continue;
> > + if (now < best && now >= min_uV)
> > + best = now;
> > + }
>
> Why is this not a factoring out of existing code (indeed it is itself a
> reimplementation of regulator_map_voltage_iterate())? This will also be
> a substantial performance loss in cases where we have a known mapping
> function - we should use a map_voltage() operation if one exists like we
> do in _do_set_voltage(). That has logic to handle missing mapping
> functions as a transition measure, now I look at it we should probably
> remove that code and just require that the mapping function is set if
> appropriate.
I didn't realize the map_voltage functionality is exactly what I want to
have. Turns out that I can factor out a regulator_map_voltage() function
instead of creating a regulator_get_voltage_floor() function. Updated
series follows shortly.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
